According to Carl Jung, the dream is:
…a fragment of involuntary psychic activity, just conscious enough to be reproducible in the waking state. {Jung, Carl G., trans. R.F.C. Hull, Dreams. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974, p. 68.}
The dream is an event in the unconscious mind that the conscious mind can, at times, just barely reproduce. The question remains: Is a dream a message from the unconscious mind directed to the conscious mind? Is it ever the case that a dream is from God?
The Value of Dreams: a Biblical/Psychological Perspective
The Psychological Background of Dreaming: Jung’s Theory of Personality
With the possible exception of the ocean, the human mind is the last, vast, uncharted area of this planet available for exploration by humankind.
We know much of the conscious mind. It is the realm of the ego, and the seat of self-awareness, reason, imagination and memory. We have learned to access the content of the conscious mind through a series of tests—things like the California Achievement Test, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the Graduate Record Examination, and dozens of other standardized tests designed to measure intelligence, etc. Of course, the primary test of the conscious mind is life itself; and most of us grow daily in ego- consciousness. But the conscious mind is just the tip of the iceberg. According to Dr. Carl G. Jung, down deep, below the level of the conscious mind, we find at least two levels of unconscious—the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious.
The personal unconscious contains data and memories of three kinds.
1. The personal unconscious retains many of the memories that the conscious mind has forgotten and can no longer recall.
2. The personal unconscious contains many of the experiences that did not gain the attention of our conscious mind because the conscious mind was busy giving heed to other things. For instance, suppose that you are a sensing person, one who gathers data through the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. You are likely to apprehend all the data that comes to you through these senses, but somewhat less likely to pick up the hidden signals that the intuitive person may pick up. Or, perhaps you are an intuitive. You do not always pick up everything that a sensing person does, but you are miles ahead at picking up hidden signals. Indeed, for you, the unstated and the unexpressed things that do not come up in a conversation with a friend may be the most meaningful part of the conversation. One’s conscious mind picks up the signals it looks for according to one’s preference for sensing or intuiting, and sometimes misses the rest. What your conscious mind misses often goes into your personal unconscious.
3. There is one other group of experiences that are invariably relegated to the personal unconscious. The ego—which is the organizing principle and the director of the conscious mind—the thing that enables us to say “I,” admits to the conscious mind all that it considers non-disturbing or normal, while sending experiences that produce too much anxiety in the conscious mind into the personal unconscious. The often encountered example is that of the woman who was abused by her father as a child. She frequently blocks out this experience so completely that she represses it, and does not consciously remember it at all. Nevertheless, it is still in her mind, deep down in her personal unconscious. From there it frequently proceeds to rob her of her healthy, God-given sexuality.
Jung observes that the personal unconscious consists for the most part of complexes. {Jung, Carl G., trans. R.F.C. Hull, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990, p. 42.} The great majority of the time these complexes remain hidden from consciousness, showing themselves only as symptoms of one’s neuroses (fears). The personal unconscious is like that part of the iceberg that is submerged below the surface of the water. It takes an enormous effort to examine it.
The lowest level of unconscious—the part of the unconscious that we are born with, is the collective unconscious. Carl Jung has written:
The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche that can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. {Ibid., p. 42.}
Jung argued that the collective unconscious is that part of the mind that we inherit from the species. It emerged as members of the human family struggled against slavery to the instincts. The collective unconscious is thus rooted in our animal nature, and precedes the self-awareness, reason and imagination that gave rise to human consciousness. {As a Christian I accept the dual nature of man. Man is finite, and belongs biologically to the animal kingdom. Yet, man is more. Unlike the animals, human beings possess self-awareness, reason and imagination. We are free. In Genesis 3 we read where God says, “Let us make man in our own image.” Human beings bear not only the image of the creation, but also the image of the Creator, the Imago Dei. Thus, it must be argued that scripture recognizes the dual nature of man. Most modern theologians take this for granted and build their theological systems upon it. Psychologists, too, accept the dual nature of man—finite, but after a fashion free; and insist that humankind’s higher nature is built upon the lower nature. This is true of Jung.}
Just as the personal unconscious consist primarily of complexes, so the content of the collective unconscious consist primarily of what Jung calls archetypes. Archetypes exist not so much as knowledge, but as “pre-existent forms,” waiting to be filled in by the experience of life. {Op. Cit. Jung, C.G., The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, p. 43.} Jung frequently points out that the archetypes of the collective unconscious are universally expressed in the external world in the form of myths. Jung speaks of myths not as “fairy tales,” but as constructs and stories which contain universal truths.
Archetypes are too numerous to catalog. Some are quite simple, they are nothing more than the natural objects that fill our world, things like the generic “tree.” Some archetypes are much more complicated. These include the archetypes for God, demons, the child, the old man, the old woman, snakes—as a symbol for evil, the hero, etc.
Consider the archetype for God. If, as we read in Genesis, God made humankind in his own image, it seems quite reasonable to me to find that the archetype of God is imprinted upon our collective unconscious. St. Augustine spoke of the Imago Dei. He was expressing the concept powerfully when he said, “O Lord, thou madest us for thyself, and our heart is restless until it repose in thee.” {Augustine, Confessions. New York: Collier Macmillan, 1961, p. 1.} Faith affirms that we are restless for God because the Imago Dei—the God archetype, haunts us from within our unconscious mind. Jung himself, ever the empiricist, points out that the discovery of the God archetype in the collective unconscious is not a proof of God, nor is it a denial. It simply amplifies humankind’s longing for some reality greater than itself. Only faith can speak of how and why this archetype was placed within us.
The archetype of the snake is also interesting, figuring as it does in the religious history of our faith. In the Genesis story of the Temptation and Fall, it is a snake that tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 3:1f) In handing out punishment, God then puts enmity between snakes and humankind. (Genesis 3:13f)
It is interesting that anthropologists now tell us that snakes were the natural enemies that prehistoric human beings feared most. A man could crawl into a cave to successfully avoid the lion or the bear only to sit on a poisonous snake. Soon human beings were looking for snakes where there were none. As a child, I experienced the power of this archetype. I once read a Red Ryder comic in which Red flipped back the sheets of his bed to see a coiled rattlesnake. For the next ten years I checked my sheets nightly before going to bed. In the movies, Indiana Jones expresses a similar fear.
Snakes are a universal symbol for evil, but also a universal symbol for overcoming evil. When the children of Israel murmured against God, God sent fiery serpents to punish them. To halt their dying, Yahweh instructed Moses to fashion a bronze serpent, and to put it on a pole so it could be lifted up for the Hebrews to see. All who looked upon this “fiery serpent” lived. In John’s gospel Jesus says, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15) According to the gospel all who look in faith to the Christ of the cross are healed of the disease of sin. Likewise, modern physicians use the snake as a part of their symbol.
What does this mean? I think that it means that we must face the evil—whether personal or societal, so that we can overcome it. As every good physician knows, “Diagnosis is the first step toward cure.” This is true not just of diseases of the body, but also of diseases of the mind like neuroses, and, of course, of diseases of society like poverty and ignorance itself. It is also true of the whole gamut of “sin” that makes us individually and corporately “sick.” In his book, Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Carl Jung writes:
Much of the evil in the world is due to the fact that man in general is hopelessly unconscious…it is also true that with increasing insight we can combat this evil at its source in ourselves.{Jung, Carl, Modern Man in Search of a Soul. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1933, p. 205.}
The Bible recognizes and preaches the evil in humankind and in human society. In Genesis 6:5 we read that God once saw that “…every imagination of the thoughts of (humankind’s) heart was only evil continually.” In St. Paul’s letter to the Romans we read, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one.” (3:10-12) As Christians, all of us have the responsibility of facing the sin in ourselves and in our society, so that we may repent and turn to God for forgiveness. It is the one who comes face to face with the holiness of God, who then turns upon him or herself to face the sin within. Thus, after his vision in the temple, Isaiah could say, “Woe is me, for I am a man of unclean lips and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” (Isaiah 6:5)
But let us return to our broader discussion. According to Jung there are many archetypes, but four hold special significance for each of us. The first two are a “pair”: The Anima: This is the “female side” of every man. The Animus: This is the “male side” of every woman.
If you have a strange male or female appear in your dreams, it may be that you are confronting your real “other-half.” Sometimes these “opposites” are unknown to us. Sometimes they wear the face of family or friends.
I think it is biblical to say that each of us, male and female, does have an anima or an animus. When God created humankind in God’s image, God created us “male and female.” This is a primary reference to the sexes, but it certainly means more. Man does not bear one half of God’s image and woman the other half. Rather, each bears the Imago Dei in toto. Thus, when Jesus speaks of marriage, he quotes Genesis, saying, “The two shall become one flesh.” Not two halves make a whole, but the two wholes become another whole. This is good news because it means that each of us is a whole person in and of ourselves. We do not have to marry to complete ourselves, as so many would have it.
The Self is the third archetype of note. The Self is the symbol for wholeness in each of us. Jung maintains that we are not born seeking wholeness; rather, we are born whole, integrated personalities. Our task throughout life is to maintain this sense of wholeness, even as we are individuating. To “individuate” means, simply to leave the warmth and security of the mother’s womb and the mother’s skirts to become an distinct, unique, insofar as possible, self-determined human being. The degree of individuation varies for each of us. Some never really get beyond mother’s skirts—or the club’s, or the ethnic group’s, etc. But it must be said that the truly individuated person is constantly moving toward the full functioning of all of his or her powers. Jung makes the point that individuation is very different from individualism. An individualist may be nothing more than a loner—one who refuses even the good that the community of humankind offers just for the sake of his or her own stubbornness. One who individuates becomes a unique person, but invariably finds him or herself more closely identified with humankind than ever before. Indeed, one who becomes aware of the symbols of the collective unconscious, becomes not less but more aware of his or her connectedness to and dependence upon the whole race of human beings. This sheds further light upon the saying of Jesus that one ought to “…love one’s neighbor as one’s self.” (Mark 12:31b)
Jung frequently—but not exclusively compares the self archetype to Christ. {Jung, Carl G., ed. De Laszlo, Violet S., Psyche and Symbol. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 36.} That is, the Christ of faith that we meet in the pages of the New Testament, is the external expression of the archetype. Thus, in I Corinthians 15, St. Paul calls Jesus Christ the external archetype of the humanity that has only begun to emerge due to the birth, ministry, death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus the Christ. He writes:
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
We ought also to note that Paul and his followers did not confine the influence of Chris,t the archetype of humanity, to the sphere of historical time. In Romans 8, Paul speaks in terms of God’s eternal foreknowledge and predestination. In verse 29 he writes:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he (Jesus Christ) might be the first-born of many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Here Paul writes in the “gnomic” or “timeless” aorist. {Moulton, J.H., Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I., Prolegomena. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967, p. 135.} He sees the process from foreknowledge to glorification as complete in an eternal (timeless) sense, but it is obviously not complete in time. God is still calling, still justifying, still glorifying. It is the predestination that is finished. According to author of Ephesians 1—at the very least a close follower of Paul, if not Paul himself, God “…chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” I think we must interpret this choosing by God in a universal sense. God chose humanity in Christ. The human destiny is to be a human being like Jesus was a human being, full individuated, but fully dependent upon God, and fully identified with the race. Naturally, people have some say here. We have freedom. Individuals may reject God’s grace, but this does not rule out the possibility that the archetype of self may just be God’s way of seeing that human beings at least start with the right “pre-existent form” that yearns to be filled. As Jung has observed with regard to all archetypes—human beings are not born with a blank slate.
Is it so remarkable to think that God has placed this self/Christ archetype in all of us from birth? If this is true, and I believe it is, it is a superb psychological explanation of what the Reformed theologian John Calvin called “common grace.” It accounts for the fact that even people who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ become whole, integrated, well-functioning, happily adapted, socially responsible selves. The Catholics have enlarged upon this doctrine of Calvin, seemingly combining it with the thought of Jung. They say that when non-Christians achieve the kind of wholeness about which we have spoken, then it is a matter of “the hidden Christ” working himself out in them, even though this occurs outside of the Christian experience of the proclamation of the gospel and the church. Of course, the best scenario takes place when the internal Christ/self archetype moves us to respond to the call of the external Christ that is proclaimed by the Church and the Bible, and to embrace Him in faith. In this case the archetype—”the pre-existent form,” takes its content and meaning from the proclamation of Christ by the church. This is a dramatic movement toward true, inward and outward wholeness.
{We ought to note in passing that Jung identifies the self/Christ archetype with the God archetype. This is true for him because he believes that the self archetype “longs for perfection,” and that the pre-existent form takes its content from those ideas which call forth the best in our humanity. In Jung’s theory of personality the self/Christ/God archetype occupies somewhat the same role as Freud’s superego—it operates on the perfection principle. In Freud’s theory of personality the id operates on the pleasure principle, the ego operates on the rational principle, and the superego on the perfection principles.}
The Shadow is the fourth and final archetype of note. The shadow is the dark side of our human nature. It is all the things that we are, that we refuse to admit to our conscious mind. Robert Lewis Stevenson’s story, Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde, is the classic literary expression of the two sides of our personality, one light and conscious, one dark and unconscious. Though we are getting ahead of ourselves, it is interesting to observe that the idea for this story occurred to Stevenson in a dream!
To return to the subject at hand, one psychologist observes that our shadow walks along behind us dragging a long black bag. All the things that disturb us, those things that contribute to lack of our wholeness, and eventually rear their ugly heads to form our neuroses, go into the bag. Sooner or later, he says, we must face our shadow and unpack the bag. {Bly, Robert, A Little Book on the Human Shadow. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.} If we do not, then terrible things can happen. Most of the time the ego is firmly in control, but it is possible for complexes of the personal unconscious to develop around the archetypes of our collective unconscious to the point that they threaten the place of ego. As we have seen, a complex is nothing more than a cluster of ideas. Say, for instance, you have a fear of heights. This may grow out of the fact that you fell from your bed as a infant, were pushed from a tree as a child, and threatened with a fall as a teenager. This cluster of ideas soon becomes a complex that makes you afraid to get above ground level. Other, still more serious, complexes can develop. Jung warns that a complex has the power to become autonomous. A complex can actually overrule the ego and make one do things that one does not wish to do. That is why good, decent people are frequently observed to do things that are contrary to their known character.
Consider another complex that—while not universal, is common to many. In his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Abraham Maslow warns of “the Jonah complex.” {Maslow, Abraham H., The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: The Viking Press, 1971, p. 35f.} Named after the reluctant prophet of the Old Testament who did not know how to handle success, the Jonah complex is that unconscious reality that keeps many of us from achieving what we might if we were healthy, whole and more fully conscious. The Jonah complex frequently haunts us in the face of new, more demanding responsibilities and opportunities, sometimes turning us into our own worst enemies, and paving the way for failure.
Do many people discover their shadow? Yes, many. Often it is the near universal crisis of mid-life in which we find ourselves rethinking our relationship to our bodies, our families, our work, and our idea of God, that forces us to face our shadow, look into the long, black bag it is dragging, and unpack it.
It is unfortunate that most of us wait until the morning sun of life that falls gently upon the face has moved behind us, revealing our shadow to us before we take the time to learn about this darker side of our own personalities. We would do better to face our shadow on our own terms in our own good time.
Psychiatrists use several means of getting at our unconscious mind, and thus, the shadow side of us. I can think of three:
- Free Association
- The Rorschach Test
- Dreams
This brings us to our main subject, the importance of dreams.
Dreams: What Are They?
According to Jung, the dream is:
…a fragment of involuntary psychic activity, just conscious enough to be reproducible in the waking state. {Jung, Carl G., trans. R.F.C. Hull, Dreams. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974, p. 68.}
The dream is an event in the unconscious mind that the conscious mind can, at times, just barely reproduce. The question remains: Is a dream a message from the unconscious mind directed to the conscious mind? There are three possibilities. 1) Perhaps the unconscious mind “has the address” of the conscious mind, and purposefully sends the dream/message. 2) Perhaps the unconscious mind sends out the dream/message to the conscious mind in hopes of gaining its attention, just as our scientists send signals into the far reaches of space in hopes of attracting the attention of intelligent life. 3) Perhaps the dream is not a message at all, but an event in the unconscious mind that the conscious sometimes “intercepts.” It is impossible for us to say which of these scenario’s is more likely—even Jung’s use of language at this point is ambiguous. Perhaps it is best simply to say that a dream is our unconscious mind trying to make sense of our life through the things that it has apprehended, just as the thought of the conscious mind is the attempt of the ego to do the same. Yet—and this is crucial to our argument that it is worthwhile to meditate upon and seek to understand our dreams, in one regard the unconscious mind has an advantage over the conscious mind; for, as we have seen, the unconscious mind has access to more levels of information than the conscious mind, for the unconscious mind has knowledge of the conscious mind, while, by definition, much of the unconscious mind remains forever hidden from consciousness. It is because the unconscious mind has knowledge of the conscious mind, that such a great number of “memory images” plucked from our conscious experience of life appear in our dreams.{Ibid., p. 70.} For instance, in a dream that I had in which I was flying, two memory images predominated: 1) a trip down a hill at high speed on my bicycle, and 2) a loop that I once did on a roller coaster at Carrowinds.
Having established a minimal definition of dreams, let us turn to possibilities and problems of dream interpretation.
Dream Interpretation According to Jung
The value of dream interpretation has gained wide spread acceptance only since the time of Sigmund Freud. Though quick to credit Freud for understanding the value of dreams, there are at least three reasons that force one to recognize Freud’s approach has limited value.
Of primary importance is the fact that Freud failed to recognize the existence of the collective unconscious. Thus, in interpreting dreams, he could not, like Jung, discover the meaning of dreams in the external, mythological expression of the archetypes. Unless, that is, the dreamer had been exposed to the myth.
Secondly, Freud’s approach is of limited value because he saw all dreams in terms of “wish fulfillment.” For him, dreams primarily serve a compensatory function, making up in our sleep what we lack in the conscious life.
Third, Freud’s approach is of limited value because he insisted upon a dream book approach, where certain dreams were always interpreted in certain ways. {Ibid., p. 52.}
On the other hand, it was Jung who discovered the empirical evidence of the collective unconscious—thus enabling him to utilize the mythological expressions of the archetypes in dream interpretation. As we have seen, certain myths are external expressions of the internal world of the collective unconscious. Likewise, it was Jung who saw that certain dreams had absolutely nothing to do with “wish fulfillment.” Wish fulfillment is certainly a factor in dreaming—dreams do have a compensatory character, but compensation and wish fulfillment is not their exclusive function.{Ibid., pps. 38f.} Finally, it was Jung who argued that the one who could best interpret a dream was the dreamer him or herself.{Ibid., pps. 70-72.}
It is beyond the scope of this paper to outline everything that Jung had to say about dreams and dreaming, but these salient points need to be made.
1. Jung believed above all that the principal subject of every dream was the dreamer.
One should never forget that one dreams in the first place, and almost to the exclusion of all else, of oneself.{Jung, Carl G., Ed., Jolande Jacobi & R.F. C. Hull, Psychological Reflections. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978, p. 56.}
2. Though Jung admitted that dreams that parallel our waking situation were possible, he found them to be rare:
I would not deny the possibility of parallel dreams, i.e., dreams whose meaning coincides with or supports the conscious attitude, but, in my experience at least, these are rare.{Op. Cit., Dreams, p. 118.}
3. In the main, Jung thought dreams did have a compensatory function—not just in terms of wish fulfillment, but in terms of revealing the opposite side of one’s person given one’s current situation in life. Thus, it can be said that dreams reveal that part of our person that is hidden and often times contrary to our waking nature. Augustine, for instance, though consciously dedicated to Christ, suffered much because he had a preponderance of erotic dreams. In speaking of Augustine’s dilemma Jung writes:
The conscious mind allows itself to be trained like a parrot, but the unconscious does not—which is why St. Augustine thanked God for not making him responsible for his dreams.{Ibid., p. 120.}
4. Jung observed that some, but not all, dreams have meaning—but this meaning is sometimes very difficult for us to comprehend.
No amount of scepticism and criticism has yet enabled me to regard dreams as negligible occurrences. Often enough they appear senseless, but it is obviously we who lack the sense and ingenuity to read the enigmatic message from the nocturnal realm of the psyche.{Ibid., p. 53.}
5. Since dreams have the dreamer as their primary subject, dreams take into account everything that has significance for us.
A dream, like every element in the psychic structure, is a product of the total psyche. Hence we may expect to find in dreams everything that has ever been of significance in the life of humanity.{Ibid., p. 54.}
6. Though dreams have the dreamer as their primary subject, they invariably give rise to a universality that people oftentimes consciously seek to avoid.
The dream is a little hidden door in the innermost and most secret recesses of the soul, opening into that cosmic night which was psyche long before there was any ego-consciousness, and which will remain psyche no matter how our ego-consciousness extends…All consciousness separates; but in dreams we put on the likeness of that more universal, truer, more eternal man dwelling in the darkness of primordial night.{Ibid., p. 53.}
7. According to Jung, the “big dreams,” we have, dealing with matters of life and death, etc., originate not in the personal unconscious but in the deeper levels of the collective unconscious. They have to do with the dreamer, but only in a secondary way. They are of primary importance to the entire race, dealing as they do with the really big questions of our existence.
The “big” or “meaningful” dreams come from this deeper level (of the collective unconscious). They reveal their significance—quite apart from the subjective impression they make—by their plastic form, which often has a poetic force and beauty. Such dreams occur mostly during the critical phases of life, in early youth, puberty, at the onset of middle age (thirty-six to forty), and within sight of death….These archetypal products are no longer concerned with personal experiences but with general ideas, whose chief significance lies in their intrinsic meaning and not in any personal experience and its associations.{Ibid., p. 77.}
8. These big dreams come to us when we “consciously” overlook these universal problems.
Primarily it is a universally human problem, which because it has been overlooked subjectively, forces itself objectively upon the dreamer’s consciousness.{Ibid., p. 78.}
9. Unfortunately, except for a few scientists like Jung himself, Jung knew that primitive societies tended to benefit more from the meaning of dreams than more advanced societies.
The dream has for the primitive an incomparably higher value than it has for civilized man. Not only does he talk a great deal about his dreams, he also attributes an extraordinary importance to them, so that it often seems as though he were unable to distinguish between them and reality.{Ibid., p. 54.}
10. The fact that we ignore our dreams does not mean that they have no effect upon us.
Lack of conscious understanding does not mean that the dream has no effect at all. Even civilized man can occasionally observe that a dream which he cannot remember can slightly alter his mood for better or worse. Dreams can be “understood” to a certain extent in a subliminal way, and that is mostly how they work.{Ibid., p. 72.}
11. In working with his patients Jung avoided the dream book approach of Freud, approaching each dreamer and dream with a certain willed naivete.
No sixth sense is needed to understand dreams. But more is required than routine recipes such as are found in vulgar little dreams books….{Ibid., p. 72.}
I have no theory about dreams, I do not know how dreams arise. And I am not at all sure that my way of handling dreams even deserves the name of a “method.” I share all your prejudices against dream–interpretation as the quintessence of uncertainty and arbitrariness. On the other hand, I know that if we meditate on a dream sufficiently long and thoroughly, if we carry it around with us and turn it over and over, something almost always comes of it.{Ibid., p. 74.}
12. Naturally, Jung continued to believe that the interpretation of dreams was of paramount importance.
A dream that is not understood remains a mere occurrence; understood, it becomes a living experience.{Ibid., p. 72.}
13. Of primary importance to us is the fact that Jung held that only the dreamer can finally understand and interpret the dream.
It makes very little difference whether the doctor understands (the dream) or not, but it makes all the difference whether the patient understands.{Ibid., p. 72.}
14. Jung often stated that it is in dreams that we encounter our self.
In each of us there is another whom we do not know. He speaks to us in dreams and tells us how differently he sees us from the way we see ourselves. When, therefore, we find ourselves in a difficult situation to which there is no solution, he can sometimes kindle a light that radically alters our attitude—the very attitude that led us into the difficult situation.{Ibid., p. 76.}
15. Jung believed that it was of the utmost importance that we hear from this “other” in us. He thought it of primary importance to listen to the self.
To concern ourselves with dreams is a way of reflecting on ourselves—a way of self-reflection. It is not our ego-consciousness reflecting on itself; rather, it turns its attention to the objective actuality of the dream as a communication or message from the unconscious, unitary soul of humanity. It reflects not on the ego but on the self; it recollects that strange self, alien to the ego, which was ours from the beginning, the trunk from which the ego grew.{Ibid. p. 77.}
16. Jung, though a professed empiricist who refused to cross the line separating that which could be investigated by science and that which demanded the investigation of faith, observed that human beings—including those in the Judeo-Christian heritage, have long been convinced that God could speak in our dreams. Yet, he rightly observed that the modern church is more than a little suspicious of any real concern for dreaming and dreams.
It is not denied in medieval ecclesiastical writings that a divine influx may occur in dreams, but this view is not exactly encouraged, and the church reserves the right to decide whether a revelation is to be considered authentic or not. In spite of the church’s recognition that certain dreams are sent by God, she is disinclined, and even averse, to any serious concern with dreams, while admitting that some might conceivably contain an immediate revelation.{Ibid., p. 67.}
17. Whether or not one may hear God speak in one’s dreams may be a moot point for some. Yet, even for the most skeptical among us, of primary importance is the fact that one can learn much of oneself and achieve a new degree of self-consciousness by paying attention to one’s dreams.
Dreams give information about the secrets of the inner life and reveal to the dreamer hidden factors of his personality. As long as these are undiscovered, they disturb his waking life and betray themselves only in the form of symptoms. This means that we cannot effectively treat the patient from the side of the consciousness alone, but must bring about a change in and through the unconscious. As far as present knowledge goes, there is only one way of doing this: there must be a thorough-going, conscious assimilation of unconscious contents. By “assimilation,” I mean a mutual interpenetration of conscious and unconscious contents, and not—as is too commonly thought—a one-sided valuation, interpretation and deformation of unconscious content by the conscious mind. {Jung, C.G., Modern Man in Search of a Soul. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace & Janovich, 1933, p. 16.}
As Jung has pointed out, the problem lies in the need for “a mutual interpenetration of conscious and unconscious contents.” Not only do we need to analyze and interpret the dream, assimilating the contents of the unconscious into conscious mind, we must also work to achieve the “interpenetration” of the conscious and unconscious mind. In the case of St. Augustine, for instance, this might have meant that his conscious mind would have been able to “convert” his unconscious mind, putting a damper on some of those erotic fantasies. Or, just as good an option, it might have meant that he ought to have listened to his unconscious mind. Those erotic fantasies were probably telling him that he needed wife! Why he failed to marry his mistress after his conversion is beyond me. At any rate, this interpenetration is a difficult task that can best be achieved with the help of an analyst or spiritual director. Nevertheless, anyone can begin the task as they pay attention to the dream messages they receive from the unconscious.
In summary, we may point out that, for Jung, and for us, the dream is the primary window or door through which one can peer to gain a fuller knowledge of who we are in toto. Some dreams have meaning, others do not. Dreams are filled with nonsense and memory images and are difficult to interpret. Some dreams are “bigger” than others, since they have to do with the universal problems and questions of humanity. These big dreams occur at key times in our lives, particularly if we consciously overlook the significance of these times. Even some dreams that we do not consciously remember upon waking have the power to affect us in positive and negative ways. It is up to the dreamer, sometimes in concert with a competent counselor, therapist, or spiritual director to discover the meaning of dreams. Though moderns—with a few exceptions, have tended to place less value on our dreams than primitives, we would do well to pay attention to them. At the very least, they give us a fuller picture of who we are. Of course, there are those who have said much more of dreams. There are those who have held that dreams are one of the means though which God communicates with the human family. We now turn our attention away from science, to examine the “dream convictions” of those who preceded us in the Judeo-Christian expression of faith.
The Biblical Experience of Dreams and Their Meaning
The Bible is filled with instances in which dreams, and the interpretation of dreams loom large in the corporate and individual histories of the people of God. Without doubt, dreams played a more natural {Natural in that dreams and visions were a part of their “normal” experience of the Divinity.} role in the primitive Hebrew society than they do in our society today. Mainline Protestants hardly ever speak of dreams (or visions). This has left this dimension of our human experience to be exploited by the Pentecostals and other groups, which we once called “fringe” groups. More recently we may add the “new age” movement to the list. This is too bad. The mainline churches must wake up. Any area of spirituality and life which we neglect will soon become the exclusive province of some fringe group which will undoubtedly push the area of our neglect to ridiculous extremes. Only by anticipating the need can we prevent this for the good of the whole church. Besides, it may be that we are missing something. Modern psychology insists that we are.
The heroes, the heroines—and not a few villains of the Bible, placed great value upon dreams. You will no doubt recall without effort many dreams and dreamers of the Bible. In the examples that follow, I mention just those from passages of scripture where the dream is specifically identified as a dream. Note, too, that our concern here is not so much the content of the dream, but the validity of the dream as a means of God’s communication. The list is by no means complete.
Jacob: Jacob dreamed of a ladder stretching from earth to heaven with the angels of God ascending and descending upon it. At the top of the ladder he saw God. In his dream, God promised Jacob a land, a seed, and a blessing just as he had promised these things to Abraham and Isaac before him. Jacob had other dreams, particularly when he was in the employ of his father-in-law, Laban.
Joseph: Joseph had two dreams, each pertaining to his family and his place among them. In the first, he is gleaning in a field with his brothers. Their sheaves bowed down to his sheaf. In the second, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars bowed to his star. He told his family about these dreams. Naturally, his brothers were upset, and his father, Jacob, had to do some hard thinking. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery because of his dreams. You know the rest of the story, “(The brothers) meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” (Genesis 50:20)
Pharaoh: Not only did Joseph dream, he also interpreted dreams. It is Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams, beginning with those of Pharaoh’s wine steward and baker, that brought him to the attention of Pharaoh, himself. Eventually, Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams about the seven lean cows devouring the seven fat cows, and the seven withered ears of corn that swallowed the seven good ears, and he came to prominence in the land of Egypt.
Daniel: Daniel had dreams and visions of things which were (and are?) to come. The angel Gabriel appeared in at least one of Daniel’s dreams as an interpreter. Like Joseph, Daniel also had the ability to interpret dreams for others.
Nebuchadnezzar: The king of Babylon dreamed of the four kingdoms. Daniel alone could interpret the dream. All the diviners, magicians, and astrologers were powerless to do so.
Joseph the husband of Mary: It was in a dream that an angel appeared to Joseph and convinced him that the child that Mary carried was begotten by the Holy Spirit. Joseph and the wisemen from the east had other dreams warning them of Herod’s desire to kill the child, of the actions they should take, and, ultimately, of Herod’s death.
Dreams & Visions
There are many other dreamers and dreams of the Bible with which you are already familiar, but we have made our point. At this juncture, it is more needful to point the way in which the authors of the Bible compare and contrast dreams with visions.
1. Dreams and visions may be compared in that both were seen as valid means by which God would communicate to his people. In Numbers 12:6, God speaks through Moses saying:
“Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream.”
2. It would appear that, at times, when the word “vision” is used, a vision is contrasts with a dream in that it occurs “in a trance-like state” during the day. This is true for Cornelius in Acts 10:1f:
About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him…..
It is also true for Peter:
Peter fell into a trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. Acts 10:9-16
3. It would be nice if we could say that dreams always occurred at night while people slept, and that visions always occurred in a trance like state during the day. Such is not the case. Even though the use of the words varies slightly from biblical writer to biblical writer, we err if we make too fine a distinction between visions and dreams. Several times dreams are called “a vision of the night.” (Genesis 46:2; Job 4:13). At other times a vision which has already been identified as a vision is referred to as “a vision of the night”, leaving one undecided about whether it occurred during sleep or in a trance like state.
Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Daniel 2:19
The book of Daniel, in particular, frequently blurs the distinction between dreams and visions beyond recognition. Thus Daniel says to Nebuchadnezzar:
“Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these….” Daniel 2:28
4. Dreams and visions may also be compared in that the prophets of the Old Testament warn not just against false dreams and false dreamers, but against false visions and false visionaries.
Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, says the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them; so they do not profit this people at all says the LORD. Jeremiah 23:32
They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. Jeremiah 14:14
These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment. Isaiah 28:7
5. Likewise, dreams and visions may be compared in that the dream or the vision is never to take precedent over the nations historical experience of God. Three things provide the “test” of a dream.
a. The priest and the law.
b. The elders and their counsel.
Disaster comes upon disaster, rumor follows rumor; they seek a vision from the prophet, but the law perishes from the priest, and counsel from the elders. Ezekiel 7:26
c. The prophet and “the Word of God.”
Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? says the LORD. Jeremiah 23:31
6. False dreams were to be expected, and were considered a “test” of the people’s faithfulness to God.
If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, “Let us go after other gods,” which you have not known, “and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to know all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him, and keep his commandments and obey his voice and you shall serve him and cleave to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Here we must note that the Bible should always be given precedence over a dream or a vision, and it hardly seems possible that any Christian would ever follow the direction of a dream that flies in the face of the plain meaning of scripture.
7. It is easier to understand the value of these tests if we recall that dreams and visions, like all prophecy, falls into three categories.
a. The foretelling of events that will occur in the far distant future.
b. The foretelling of events that appear imminent.
c. The forthtelling of the Word of God, which for the Old Testament people of faith, meant “a contemporary application of the law.” In the New Testament experience of faith—and in our own, it would mean “a contemporary application of the gospel.”
The Hebrews erred when they preferred the sympathetic visions and dreams of false prophets predicting peace when there was no peace, to the thundering proclamation of the Word of God by Jeremiah, pointing to ruin and captivity. We would do well to learn from their mistakes. When it comes to personal dreams, we must remember that some dreams are nothing more than the lust of the flesh and/or the pride of the mind. We can learn from these dreams, but only as negative examples.
8. So, dreams and visions may be compared in that they were subject to the threefold test (No. 5. immediately above). Nevertheless, the prophet Joel in the Old Testament, and the author of Acts in the New Testament, continued to assert the fact that God offers guidance through visions and dreams. Thus, they have implicit value for the people of God.
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Joel 2:28
This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yes, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. Acts 2:16f
In summary, it must be said dreams and visions stand on a par.{Though we will not broaden our discussion unnecessarily at this point, the same thing is sometimes true of “visions” and “revelations.”} God has and will use both to guide his people.
Knowing as we now do that dreams and visions stand on a par—at least when considering the broad spectrum of biblical authors, let us venture to say a little more about both.
1. Some visions that are reported in the Bible may have been visions of the night, dreams. Here we would do well to investigate the “visions” of Abraham, Paul, etc.
2. A dream or a vision may occur with such intensity that the dreamer cannot decide whether it is something that takes place outside the body, “in the real world,” or in the mind.
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.2 Corinthians 12 (Paul speaking of himself)
Here we must consider our own view of the reality of God’s action in us. The Bible includes not just the mighty acts of God, but the Psalms and Proverbs, etc. Some of the content of the Psalms, Proverbs, etc. was given not in the external realm of world history, but in the internal arena of one human mind! Is it not possible that the human mind—even the unconscious mind, remains an arena for God’s communication?
3. Since it is sometimes impossible for one to distinguish between “inward reality” (dreams & visions) and “outward reality,” it may be that some encounters between God’s people and God (or God’s messengers, Gabriel for instance) may also have been dreams or visions, even though they were not reported as such.
a. It is interesting that it was Gabriel who appeared to Mary with the news of her child. It was Gabriel who appeared to Daniel in his vision of the night. Personally, I think Mary had a dream. (Remember: Matthew explicitly says that the angel who appeared to Joseph did so in a dream). Indeed, it occurs to me that the “sexlessness” of angels may be traced not to their actual appearances, but to dreams in which the dreamers were confronted with their anima/animus. This is pure speculation, but it would make an interesting area of investigation.
b. Even the late Eldon Ladd, a very conservative New Testament scholar from Fuller Seminary, suggested that the temptation of Jesus took place “…probably in (his) imagination.”{Ladd, George Eldon, A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, p. 49.} This would account for the way Mark reduces the temptation to a phrase, while Luke and Matthew give extended accounts of it. As Ladd points out, how else could Satan have shown Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world with their glory?” (Matthew 4:8).
c. There are many other possibilities—Jacob at Jabock, for instance, or the disciples who discover the angels at the empty tomb.
If these encounters were of God, they are no less vital if God chose to communicate through inward rather than outward realities. Here we may need to draw a distinction in our thinking between subjective and objective visions; subjective visions being those visions which originate within oneself; objective visions being those visions which originate outside oneself—perhaps with God.
4. Sometimes the dream or vision reports an unmistakable conversation from God, sometimes it does not. The “dreamer” is left to decide for him or herself.
And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. Acts 16:9-10
As I read through the biblical evidences, these thoughts also occurred to me:
5. Joseph had two dreams that meant the same thing. Pharaoh had two dreams that meant the same thing. Peter had three visions that meant the same thing. Psychologist tell us that we frequently dream several dreams on the same night that mean the same thing. At other times we have recurring dreams. On infrequent occasions, I have had dreams on different nights that were meaningful to me only when I consciously tied them together.
6. Dreams occur more frequently in times of personal anxiety and crisis. This is true of biblical characters. It is also true in my personal experience. I nearly always dream on Saturday night before preaching on Sunday. Frequently I have an anxiety dream in which I am not adequately prepared to preach. Several pastors have told me that they have this same, recurring dream.
7. Dreams occur more frequently in times of societal anxiety and crisis. In the Bible, dreams are clustered around the great times of change.
What Can You and I Expect from our Dreams?
1. Of primary importance is the fact that our dreams can help us to “know ourselves” more fully. In this regard, it must be remembered that self-awareness is the exact opposite of self-centeredness. Maslow observes, “One who gains knowledge of oneself simultaneously gains knowledge of the whole human race.” It was said of Jesus, “No one had to tell him what was in man, for he knew what was in man.” (John 2:25) Jesus knew what was in man not because of the divine omniscience which he surrendered in the incarnation, but because he had, in the temptation, searched his own “soul,” both conscious and unconscious. As the writer of Hebrews has observed, “He was tempted in all points like as we are, but was without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15) Here the dictum of the Delphic is paramount, “Know thyself!”
I recall three dreams in particular in which I was able to know myself more fully and with profit.
In the first dream, I was walking through ivy and snakes were floating up in my face. I have no doubt the ivy was present in my dream because my wife and I have a running argument about ivy. I love it. She says it is a haven for snakes and spiders. Anyway, in my dream, I was not afraid of the snakes; I brushed them aside as one might push aside branches when walking through the woods. Then, in the dream, I realized that though the snakes were harmless to me, they may be a danger to my son who was walking behind me. This dream occurred in a time when I was allowing my passive-aggressive side to show itself to my family. I was taking my anger at events at church home and taking it out on them. I realized that, though I was spiritually mature enough to handle this, my son and my daughter might not be. Since this dream, I have tried my best to be assertive rather than passive-aggressive, and I refuse to take my anger home.
In the second dream, Elayne and I were looking at a new house. It had one large room filled with swinging doors like those on the saloon in “Gunsmoke” (My favorite TV western). Each door was brightly painted, and very attractive, but it did not make for a livable house. We told the real estate agent who was with us in the dream (I think she was my anima) that we had seen enough. Then, as were leaving the house, we came upon a small, tight, winding stair. The real estate agent asked us if we wanted to see upstairs. I answered, “No, I know what is up there.” I interpreted the dream as having to do with the course of my life and view of God. Life is full of options (swinging doors), and we must choose the ones we take. The stair and the upstairs room that was familiar to me though I had never seen it, represented my view of God. At this time I had jettisoned several childish beliefs about God and the way God works in the world, and I consciously missed them. I consciously missed them because I genuinely wanted for every event of life to make sense in terms of God’s providence. The fact is, and I recognized this in my dream by refusing to climb the stairs, some events (most if not all) mean absolutely nothing in terms of God’s providence. They are simply random events. The important thing, as H. Richard Niebhur observes, is that we respond to all the events of life in the sight of the One behind the many acting upon us in all actions upon us.{This is the principal thesis of Niebuhr’s book, The Responsible Self. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.} Let me explain this in the language of Victor Frankel. Frankel is right when he points out that the one freedom that can never be denied us is our freedom to choose the way we will react to the events of our lives. It is important to me that my response be a Christian response, even if the events of my life are the product of injustice and evil. It is interesting that this insight came to Frankel when he stood naked before a Nazi officer who had just taken away his last contact with his wife, his family, and his old way of life—his golden wedding band.{Frankel, Viktor. Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Pocket Books, 1963.} I would mention a final dream of my own.
In a period of disturbing unrest, I had a dream in which I opened a closed door. Behind the door was a shimmering object that reminded me of the baptismal font that I had once seen at St. Patrick’s in New York. When I saw it, I had a profound sense of well being. I knew things would be all right. Jung would say that I had had a mandala dream, encountering the archetype of God, self, wholeness.{Jung, Carl G., Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books, 1989, p. 334.} I agree. These dreams are common to all races and faiths, and I suspect that they account for many “life after life” experiences. The point is that, because I sought to understand these dreams, all three of them had a tremendous impact upon my waking life and my total person.
2. Dreams and their proper interpretation can help us to know our hidden half, our self, our anima/animus, our shadow, etc. Indeed, dreams may even help us to confront the evil that is lodged in us and in our groups. Perhaps we will learn why it is that we must frequently say with St. Paul, “I do not understand my own actions; for I don’t do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate.” (Romans 7:15).
3. Dreams can help us determine our deep seated desires. Some years ago I had a call to a certain church. A letter of acceptance was already written and filed on the hard disk of my PC. Then I had a dream in which the former pastor of that church said to me, “Worth, you don’t want to go to my old church, you want to go to such and such a church when you move.” I saw this dream as revealing my true desires. I turned down the church. Like Paul after his dream of the man from Macedonia, I was prepared to say that the course of action I took was in accordance with the will of God. I cannot believe that God wanted me to serve a church that my unconscious mind was less willing to accept than my conscious mind. My dream was not in conflict with the threefold test of scripture: 1) the priest and the law (My knowledge of the scriptures), 2) the elders and the counsel (The P.E.C. and the Rules and Regulations of the Moravian Church), or 3) the prophet and “the word of God” (My contemporary application of the gospel as it applied to this situation. This included my prayers to God that God the Holy Spirit might help me reach a good decision).
4. We are told that the Holy Spirit would inspire an increase of dreams and visions. It may be that God still does speak to us in our dreams. As we have noted, according to H. Richard Niebuhr, God is “…the One behind the many, acting upon us in all actions upon us.” Paul says, “..in (God) we live and move and have our being.”(Acts 17:28) Most theologians agree that there is a “revelation in nature.” Not, admittedly, the revelation of the facts of salvation in Christ, but, in some measure, a revelation of God, God’s sense of order, truth, wisdom, etc. If God is acting upon us in the outer world of reality—whether we are conscious of this action or unconscious of it, it is just as likely that God is acting upon us in the inner world of reality, in the realms of the conscious and the unconscious. We ought to listen to, and learn from, our dreams. It is a step toward self-awareness and wholeness. In this regard, we must remember that some of this world’s most noted people have profited from dreams and visions. Indeed, many have credited their dreams as one source of their creativity. Consider these few examples.
a. In his biography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Jung, himself, tells of a vision that he had in the autumn of 1913. In his vision—which occurred to him during the day, while he was wide awake, he saw a vision of Europe flowing in blood with many dead bodies floating therein. This vision reoccurred several times. In August of 1914 the First World War broke out.{Jung, Carl G., Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books, 1989, pps. 175f.} What was the source of Jung’s vision? Perhaps his unconscious mind worked to produce the vision in the same way that John Nasbitt worked to write Megatrends. Nasbitt did research in many different localities, analyzed the local trends in each, and thereby successfully predicted the “megatrends” that would sweep the world.{Naisbitt, John, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York: Warner Books, 1982, p. 3.} Certainly, Jung’s unconscious had access to the ominous events that were unfolding in Europe in the summer of 1914. Many were already consciously predicting war. The vision, a product of his personal unconscious, was the correct analysis of the data gathered by his conscious mind.
[The following three examples are taken verbatim from Jonni Kincher's book, Dreams Can Help: A Journal Guide to Understanding Your Dreams and Making Them Work for You. This book is used widely by public school systems and teacher in helping young people deal with their dreams. It is based upon Jung's theories and I recommend it highly.]
b. Physicist Niels Bohr had a dream in which he saw himself on a sun of burning gas. Planets whistled as they rushed past him in their revolutions around the sun. These dream planets were attached to the sun by thin filaments. Suddenly the burning gas cooled and solidified. The sun and planets crumbled away. When Bohr awoke, he realized that he had seen the model of an atom. His dream marked the beginning of modern atomic theory.
c. Inventor Elias Howe dreamed that he was captured by savages who dragged him before their king. The king sentenced Howe to death unless he could produce a machine that could sew. He gave Howe 24 hours to come up with the machine. Howe failed to meet the deadline. As the spears of the savages started to fall on him, he noticed the spears all had eye-shaped holes in their tips. On the basis of that discovery, Howe invented the first sewing machine.
d. Novelist Robert Lewis Stevenson dreamed about a criminal who drank a potion to change his appearance. This led him to write, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a classic story about the inner battle between good and evil.
e. The first time I taught this seminar, a participant heard these examples, then told the group that he had once solved a difficult mathematical problem in a dream after it had perplexed his waking life for weeks.
f. Many other examples were named.
5. Dream therapy has become very popular. Counselors now advocate that people “confront their fears in dreams.” This has worked for me personally. In dreams I have stood up to lions, tigers, snakes, and other wild beast that were threatening the members of my family. Jonni Kincher (see above) even recommends that we can consciously rework our bad-dreams and give them good endings. With children, this is possible through a “day-dreaming” exercise. The first time I taught this seminar, one class member, the public school teacher who called my attention to the Kincher book, told me that she had had great success in helping her niece get over her nightmares simply by praying good dreams for her when she tucked her in at night. After the passage of many years, the niece reminded her aunt of their common success. In my opinion, dream therapy has potential for some. I know from experience that once one knows that one is dreaming, one can direct the dream, and the sky is the limit. One night, after reading that it was possible to fly in a dream if one realized that one was dreaming and really wanted to, I did it! As I have mentioned, the “memory images” that came to me in the dream were those that I had garnered from riding my bike down a hill at full speed and from doing loops on a roller coaster at Carrowinds. It was fun!
Conclusion:
In leading this seminar and in writing this paper, I am not suggesting that the mainline church allow itself to become dominated by the subjective visions of its members as some charismatic fellowships have. Though some of these visions have merit, just as the vision that Jung had at the approach of World War I had merit, all too often, the visions of the charismatic crowd have led into a deadend street. I see the value of dreams as primarily personal. Like Jung and the psychoanalysts who have followed in his train, I believe dreams are a window into the unconscious self that we can ill afford to overlook. Today, most of us continue to be altogether too unconscious of who we are and all that we are. By paying attention to our dreams, we may just recover a little of the spirituality (wholeness) that we have tossed away so lightly. In the process, some few of us may just discover a fresh movement of God that the church itself can ill afford to ignore.
Yet, if you are like me, you are no more eager to receive personal direction that will effect others from God in a dream than you are eager to receive such direction from God at your breakfast table. We fear what God might say to us, we fear how the direction God gives may effect others. Besides, none of us wants to be known as a dreamer and a nut! How could one test such a momentous dream? How could one act upon it? I suppose that if I ever had such a dream, I would do the following:
a. I would keep the dream to myself.
b. I would subject the truth of the dream to my best thinking.
c. I would apply the threefold test—the priest and the law, the elders and their counsel, the prophet and the Word of God.
d. I would act upon the truth of the dream, not revealing its source.
e. I would have the confidence that my action would have more power to affect those around me than anything else. Over and over again, in the course of history, the action of one has affected the many—for ill, or for good. To choose a sad example, one serial killer can keep a town indoors at night. Or, to use a good example, one woman refusing to go to the back of the bus can launch a Civil Rights movement. It has been rightly said that, “One man, one woman, plus God is a majority in any situation!”
How Does One Start Profiting from Dreams?
1. Be aware that everyone dreams.
2. Seek to remember what you dream. Sometimes we remember our dreams, but remember only fragments of them. When you remember even a fragment of a dream, start with that fragment and work backwards through the contents of the dream. Rehearse it in your mind. Better yet, write it down or record it as soon as possible.
3. Make an effort to meditate upon your dreams.
4. Keep a dream journal in which you record not just your dreams, but your thoughts about your dreams.
5. Get a copy of one or more of the books referred to herein and read about dreams. Avoid the New Age “dream books,” as they are worthless, perhaps even dangerous.
6. Study the dreams and the dreamers of the Bible.
7. Seek to “Know Thyself!” It was said of Martin Luther, “He searched out himself before God, and God before himself.” Let us do likewise. Perhaps, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we will be convicted of sin, and righteousness, and judgment. Perhaps we will even take the steps necessary to become whole, integrated, self/Christ dominated human beings.
Good Dreams!
Finis
Worth Green, Th.M., D.Min.
EverydayCounselor©
New Philadelphia Moravian Church
4440 Country Club Road
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27104